Zamarus
-
Posts
677 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Zamarus
-
-
1 hour ago, Captain Jack said:
so the guy with the burned house should have played differently BECAUSE the guy next door was a psycho? Your side of the argument is that one person gets to play however they want, and other people don't. Seems about right.
That's actually exactly how it will be. You are going to be the one bringing the consequences and precautions yourself. The tools are there. You're not going to get an automated retaliation or karma effect versus psychos. You are going to have to deal with the situation by your own choice
-
1 minute ago, MarrrV said:
As for the human nature of asymmetrical warfare; I am trying to find a baseline or more precisely debate how to work out that base line, adding asymmetrical elements in (like tactics) is secondary to the establishment of the baseline.
Problem is that the baseline does not work the way you think. To even ever accurately getting your time investments worth in a defense against expected offense you'd have to use bots. Because what if your players on the fort are afk, or some of them just are terrible at positioning. They would still feel its unfair but who is the judge of what standard PvP play is? You really cannot expect "to get your times worth" in a game like this. You will never have that 100% perfect attack you geared yourself around. Its enough that a few of the attackers move in a slight off-set manner you didn't count on and you cant measure it anymore.
4 minutes ago, Captain Jack said:and back to this. Two people build houses. One person burns the other person's house down and laughs hahaha, welcome to the neighborhood. In order to prevent that, the other person should have become an asshole first?
PvP doesn't have to be all about getting more kills than the other guy.Two people build houses, one burns down the other person's house an laughs.
To prevent that the other player can do the following:
- Move somewhere else
- Fight back
- Hire someone to get back at him
- Forgive him
- Build a stronger house
- Come up with literally any other home-made solution
The possibilities are endless for every situation, you're arguing from the standpoint that you HAVE to be an asshole back. Which is a terribly single-minded way to think.
-
13 minutes ago, MarrrV said:
I was not replying to anyone in my first post, I was making a statement from what I gathered from the thread so far.
Yes you were as i refered to the first one you quoted me in.
13 minutes ago, MarrrV said:Use the unit of "man hours" which is commonly used to determine efficiency within the real world.
If something takes 40 man hours to create, and another party can destroy that creation with only 30 man hours invested, it is not balanced as at the end of the day we are humans looking to invest our time in to an artificial environment for the purpose of enjoyment.
The methods used in game are pretty much irrelevant beyond using a common standard. In the real world we use currency (old debate about currency just being use to represent man hours can be had).This is not how games work. You're not gonna get a 1:1 ratio of hours put in to the defense and hours put in to the offense as the variations of both sides are so large that time investment is not a good factor to base it on. A group could invest 40 hours into making fortifications that actually arent that well thought out and smarter agressors find a way to get around it with 10 hours of effort. How the hell do you balance that? One hour isnt equal to one hour between two players when their competence can vary a whole lot. And where do you draw the line to measure this and balance around it? Around the best players? The worst? The majority? Either way you do it people will be able to outdo others with less time investment because they know what they are doing.
17 minutes ago, MarrrV said:I think your drawing on what others have said and are applying to what I have said, hence the clarification in regards to time frames; that the "2 weeks to 2 days" is trying to state is "time invested" needs to be balanced, or at least FEEL balanced.
Mechanics should FEEL balanced in some regard i agree but time investment is a terrible way of measuring it as stated above.
18 minutes ago, MarrrV said:Adding asymmetrical warfare tactics to the mix is unneeded before establishing a baseline to work from, and as it is ALWAYS there (it is in our nature as humans) it should be allowed to happen in game, and ideally should NOT be balanced as that would remove from its very nature. (Rock paper scissors)
All warfare will be asymmetrical from the get go, the only way you can have anything else is with two parties voluntarily setting themselves up 100% equally planning the battle together.
21 minutes ago, MarrrV said:The end result is not to make PvP "balanced" but to make it FEEL that all players are investing their time in something that they have a chance to enjoy. The inherent nature of open PvP is that people will have up & downs, that would will "win some, lose some", but when it becomes "win most, lose nothing" or "win rarely, lose everything" you risk losing players, which only harms the game
If players cannot figure out a way to change their situation and leaves the game that's a natural part of not "getting good". You will never have equality in winning and losing or even close to 50/50 without hardcore developer intervention, and this is a sandbox game where players make their own rules, ships and whatnot, preventing "win, most lose nothing" and "win rarely, lose everything" situations is up to the player and not game balance as i've already stated why.
-
42 minutes ago, MarrrV said:
Thing is here. I already in what you first replied to did say i also think they should do a good job balancing the values when it comes to resources put in and outcome, that is quite reduntant because obviously the developers would aim to do so to their best extent to the start. What is done here i feel which i was commenting on from the first place is stating the obvious and then adding concerns to it, which i think will yield nothing and you need to understand that whatever you personally feel is balanced will differ from player to player and ultimately in the end the balance wont be the key factor to PvP but what methods and strategies the players develop. PvP in a game like this factor in much more than just defensive structures versus offensive weapons. The whole 2 weeks to 2 days, 2 weeks to 2 weeks balance theorization is flawed because not only can you not perfectly measure that in assymetrical warfare (trust me the devs will try and i think they should) but there's also elements that can factor in the fight that you dont even think of from the get go. Lets say someone built a fortress strong enough to hold a 2 weeks offensive resources value attack but the attackers figured out that they can maybe just build a siege engine taking them a day that renders your set-up useless because they figured out how to shield themselves from turrets. Or maybe they do a drop from above straight into the base skipping the turrets altogether. What then? Then you have a one day effort outdoing a 2 weeks worth of defenses, should they start balancing that too then? Not really and you simply have to learn from that or maybe prevent that by other means, like partially building your base into the ground or whatnot. Point as always being that "a objective overview of balancing time investment from multiple sources vs expected outcomes" is not the way to solve PvP inbalances in the end, but being a clever player that learns from experience is.
-
16 minutes ago, MarrrV said:
This statement is inherently missing the point; if you have players who are not PvP pro (or PvP shy to put it another way) your forcing them to do something they do not like to do (go on the offensive) and with so many other games to choose from it will put off a number of players simply because they are being forced to engage in a behaviour that is not in keeping with their nature.
While you may reply "they can go play another game then" that will also miss the point that you need the numbers of resource gatherers to fuel the PvP battles. If those resource gatherers are not there then other people have to fill that space, who do not necessarily want to do it, thus lowering their enjoyment of the game, and further driving players away.You are deliberately skipping parts of what i'm saying here. Nobody is forced to do jack shit. If people are PvP shy they will have to find their own solutions to staying away from PvP. Be it by hiding, hiring protection or just being friends with your threats. There is nothing stopping a PvP shy person from finding ways to avoid PvP. Just as there isn't and shouldn't be anything stopping Pro PvP players from engaging in it wherever they like (the arkship safezone being the only exception).
18 minutes ago, MarrrV said:This game will be all about working together, so switch out "player "for "groups" if you would like, it does not change the example.
Your example doesn't set the standards for the type of working together. I happen to agree that the game will be all about working together. And that includes working together in PvP, against PvP, building, trading and every other feature. You shouldn't be talking about balance in terms of time taken to build defenses, do not expect NQ to even fights out for you because you don't want to lose vs PvP-ers. PvP-ers have the advantage not because of mechanics or unbalanced weapons in general but because they are focusin on just that, PvP and of course will get more skilled in warfare than non-PvP-ers. I already gave examples of why it's reduntant to speculate about time taken building defenses because frankly its not as relevant as the players own minds, no war will ever be fought on equal terms anyways, all will be assymetrical warfare and pointing at your turrets saying it has too little HP compared to attackers siege weapons is missing the point. Go hide underground or place your base in a better location next time, at some point you have to realize you cant have the cake AND eat it.
-
21 minutes ago, Felonu said:
My point was that we don't know where NQ will put the balance, and we'll have to see what comes from where they do put it. Hopefully they think about how different resource costs of offensive and defensive measures will affect the game.
My point is that the balance while should be done right is not as relevant as the player-factor. If it favours offense then you'll have to simply adapt and either go on the offensive back or find alternatives. Don't expect a perfectly balanced PvP tech wise because they simply cannot in the end really know what is balanced and not in the hands of the players. They can calculate exchanges of bullets and shield durabilities and what not but that is not gonna be as big of a factor as the players themselves.
-
Also to add. If you are annoyed that you can't defend your base it's not because NQ made it unbalanced. It's because you didn't solve your own problem with lack of defenses. Hide your base underground, fly off to another planet. Ally a powerful org to protect you, hire mercs to defend you. The opportunities are endless. But calling for PvP regulations is just being lazy.
-
10 minutes ago, Felonu said:
I've mentioned this before, but it is worth bringing up. The power of defensive vs offensive tech is of central importance to the type of gameplay in the game. One example is if it takes 1 month of resources for an agressor to kill someone whos defenses took 1 day to gather the resources to power, then the aggressors have to have a good reason or overwhelming numbers to attack. This makes PVP functions more tactical, and meaningful. When an outpost gets overrun it would take something other than just offensive might. It would still make sense to attack ships if you know that their cargo would more than make up for the difference in losses, but new players and people just exploring wouldn't be worth the resource cost to destroy. There would still be people attacking and killing people for no reason other than that they had the resources to spare, but it would reduce it.
This simple mechanic is an intrinsic part of PvP balancing, and depending on where NQ puts the fulcrum we'll see how the game plays.
Problem with your arguments about "PvP" balancing is that it's a made up concept in this case. How PvP plays out will to the largest degree revolve around how the players uses the tools. You might have defenders that figured out the cheesiest strat for building a fort and can hold for days versus much larger numbers, or you might run into agressors that has siege tactics figured out and overrun you even when you are confident you can defend yourself. At such moments you shouldnt get to whine to the devs that things are unbalanced because another group didnt put as much money into the PvP power offensive or defensive as you and still won. Reality is that you'd be looking at the different players and their home-made tactics/skills being what dictates most of the balance. You can't nerf a player the way you nerf a mechanic, but you shouldn't nerf a mechanic because a player outdid you.
-
I'm definitely betting on that some people will dedicate a lot of time to reading the market changes, tracking supply and investing in rare materials. They would also want to keep the supply low so if a new vein of that rare mineral is found it might be in someone's interest to blow it up. Some shenanigans may result in a severe lack of a certain reagent for lets say a popular engine. Things like this could cause market collapses. Maybe not on galactic scale since chances are that some people supply themselves completely. But the shenanigans can indeed reach large scales either way.
-
Stay in the safezone if you are so scared, or hire protection alternatively be in an org that can provide protection. This isn't a game in god-mode or creative-mode, you will have to take risks if you want to do many things. As simple as that. And when you are at it you'd probably want to realize that the likelyhood that something flying over the tree-tops is gonna spot or attack you may very well be very small even if they could technically kill you. Just learn how to calculate your risks and find smart ways to stay safe, nobody is gonna just provide that for you for no reason, that's what the safezone is for and nothing else.
-
Will you be one of us?
New trailer. All credit to @Armedwithwings for providing us with this awesome material
- Armedwithwings and Kurock
-
2
-
God luck. I like the idea
-
32 minutes ago, Takao said:
Well, let's put it that way: Regulating specific groups of players would simply be racist and could cause real legal problems for Novaquark and is therefore completly of the table in any form.
Also it would violate the core principle of DU: Success through teamplay.
YouTubers have an advantage over other corp owners that they have a (more or less) big community and could therefore create a corp with a lot of members really fast, BUT only because you are a YouTuber doesn't mean you are good at the game, at organising a corp, etc. (as already mentioned here).
Also, do you know any multiplayer game where a or several YouTubers "broke" or otherwise caused relevant problems to the game itself?
Wait a second. How is regulating youtubers racist. YouTuber is an ethnicity now? Not saying that anyone should get special treatment but that statement is just absurd
- ThatAlex, Anaximander and Warden
-
3
-
May you bask in the glory of The God Emperor of Mankind
-
-
Gotta agree with Lethys, there's plenty of ways for players to deal with this. Also youtubers getting in WHEN ITS POPULAR also means they werent there from the start so their whole crew will lack experience with the game and most likely not be a factor until they have learned it better. At which point established orgs might already have holds of certain markets, thoroughly tested combat doctrines and what not that gives them an advantage still.
-
I want a hovercar that looks like a Black Porsche 924
-
Hmm good catch i've not seen that public and i've read up on all i could
-
4 minutes ago, 0something0 said:
My org is all about doing crazy things in DU. One of the projects I have in mind is to go as fast as possible, or if the 20,000 km/h limit stays, to create a ship that will reach that limit in the shortest amount of time.
Smelling some NDA here.
Anyways for me and my guys it will revolve a lot around going somewhere we can be left alone for a while and then return with guns drawn
-
8 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:
But ... but we got star gate isnt it ? I thought the only way to go to another star system is go though the Star Gate which is very expensive according to NQ
That's where you are wrong mate. Star Gates are something that will come in an expansion after launch, they will be expensive yes and you probably need to build a gate on each side you want to travel to (no venturing off to a random location for free).
They have talked about prior to warp drives or its equal we are looking at weeks of constant travel through space to move from system to system, by no means impossible just a huge effort. Also when such tech exists like drives that lets you go faster than before it would probably take a bit less. Neither reliant on Star gates.
-
"I know its infinite"
"How big can it get?"
I think you answered it yourself already
Realistically though people will only get so far over the years until theres no game anymore or no servers. But it has potential to be pretty god damn big.
I also hope to see some space nomads that decide to aim in one direction from Alioth and just keep moving further and further out for as many years as they can (only residing on planets and asteroids on the way in periods) just to challenge the thought
-
-
Greetings new guy
Edit: Dec 2016 Maybe not that new. But not a frequent poster
-
My submission for Novawrimo 2017
Authors Note: Beware, i have taken a liberal approach with punctuation by using it to set tempo/pace for how you read certain events. It's also written from a third perspective as if filming a movie.
Pic below is just inspiration in hindsight to match the picture in my mind
Hope it will entertain some of you!
- Lethys, Kurock, Alsan Teamaro and 1 other
-
4
PvP System
in General Discussions
Posted
Big losses is part of a player driven universe. If you put hundreds of hours into one house you better protect it well or build it strategically because people will be able to and should not be prevented from destroying it if they are capable to. You took the risk and you will have to protect it and if destroyed bring consequences to your own capabilities.